1 2025:CGHC:35370-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 79 of 2025 1. Smt. Amrila Bai Banjare, W/o Late Rajendra Banjare, aged about 38 Years, 2. Kishan Banjare, S/o Late Rajendra Banjare, aged about 20 Years, 3. Anita Banjare, D/o Late Rajendra Banjare, aged about 17 Years, Minor through the Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Amrila Bai Banjare, W/o Rajendra Banjare, aged about 38 Years, All are R/o Village- Jhiriya Khurd, Post- Kishungarh, Police Station and Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1. Executive Engineer (EE) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Pandariya, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Junior Engineer (JE) Chhattisgarh State Electircity Distribution Company Limited, Pandariya, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. Hemrai Banjare @ Ramdas, S/o Bhagbali Banjare, aged about 38 Years, R/o Sarupara Jhiriya Khurd, Post- Kishungarh, Police Station and Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 23.07.2025 1. This First Appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2025 passed in civil suit no. 03B/2024 by the learned District Judge Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (ANNEXURE A-1). 2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, being the legal dependents of Late Rajendra Prasad Banjare, filed a civil suit seeking compensation of ₹20,00,000/- on account of his untimely death due to electrocution on 10.10.2021. The incident occurred when the deceased was working in the agricultural field of Respondent No.3, where a water pump was installed, and he came in contact with a GI wire carrying live electric current. The plaintiffs alleged that the electrocution was a result of the gross negligence of Respondent No.1, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, and its employees, who failed to properly maintain and inspect the electric supply system connected to the area. An FIR was lodged after the incident, and the suit was filed for compensation. After a full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court awarded only ₹5,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of judgment and decree till the date of payment, which the plaintiffs contend is inadequate, hence the present appeal. 3. Since the learned trial Court has already held that the strict vicarious liability of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is joint and several, the challenge in this appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs is confined to the quantum of compensation award. Accordingly, we proceed to examine and 3 decide only the quantum of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside or suitably modified, as it suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities. He further submits that the trial Court has awarded an unreasonably low amount of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation without adopting any judicially recognized method of calculation and without appreciating the evidence relating to the deceased’s age, earning capacity, and future prospects. He also submits that the deceased was a young and able-bodied person and the Court was bound to consider not just his existing income, but also his potential future earnings while determining just compensation. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that the compensation amount may kindly be enhanced in the interest of justice. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 12, National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, vehemently oppose the submission of counsel for the appellants and submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is just, proper, and based on the facts and evidence brought on record 4 and needs no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the documents annexed with the appeal carefully. 7. As regards the income of the deceased, though appellant No.1, wife of the deceased, stated in her deposition that at the time of incident, her husband/deceased was aged about 38 year and was earning Rs.5 lakhs per annum by working as a Mason and also doing agricultural work, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced by her to substantiate the said fact. In cases where the monthly income of the deceased is not proved by any documentary evidence or reliable oral testimony, the Courts are justified in assessing notional income based on the Minimum Wages Act, considering the nature of the work of the deceased was engaged in. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) specifically held that where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. However, in the absence of evidence, the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act can be the basis for determining income. 8. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) and considering the fact that the incident took place on 10.10.2021 and at that time, minimum wages for unskilled labour were Rs.9,280/- per month, it would be just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.9,280/- per 5 month. Likewise, in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 15 for the age group between 36 to 40 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 38 years, the applicable multiplier would be 15. 9. As regards the amount awarded towards future prospects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) held in para 59.4 which reads under:- “59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.” 10. Thus, applying the principle of law laid down in the said matter, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 38 years and the nature of his job, an addition of 40% of the established income is warranted towards future prospects. As regards the dependency upon the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma (supra) has held that where there are three dependents, the deduction should be 1/3. Thus, the appropriate deduction in the present case would be 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in this case. 11. So far as consortium part is concerned, the Supreme Court in 6 Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), while dealing with the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has observed in paras 21, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 22 and 23 as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, championship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. 7 Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.” 12. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), we propose to re-compute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents i.e. 3. As the appellants are the wife and children of the deceased, they are entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is assessed under this head. 13. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner: 8 SI. No. Head Calculation (in rupees) 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs.9,280/- Rs.1,11360/- 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects Rs.44,544/- S.No.1 + 2 Rs.1,55,904/- 3. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.1,03,936/- (Rs.1,55,904/- - Rs.51,968/-) 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 is applied Rs.15,59,040/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3) Rs.1,20,000/- 7. Funeral and ritual expenses after death of the deceased Rs.35,000/- Total Compensation Rs.17,29,040/- 14. Thus, the appellants/plaintiffs are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,29,040/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the death of deceased till its payment. The amount of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest already paid to the plaintiffs shall be adjusted accordingly. The apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the appellants shall be in the same proportion fixed by the learned trial Court. 15. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part with modification in the impugned judgment and decree to the above extent. 16.A decree be drawn up accordingly. No order as to cost(s). sd/- sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha